4 ms·

Ya but we do know the universe exists without any fucking clue how or why. So, it seems fine to let your mind wander a bit.

by talove 4y ago

simonh 4y ago
Of course, that's an important feature of the way we relate to the world, but that doesn't make whatever we imagine likely or probable as claimed.
- eternalban 4y ago
  That's a sensible position. However, the GP's remark first asserts that our understanding of physical reality is incomplete, which is not unreasonable given that we have not yet reconciled classical and quantum physics. Further, quantum weirdness has strongly underlined the inadequacy of our intuitive perception of 'reality'; it entirely confounds it. It is possible that spatial expanse (distance), for example, is a secondary order phenomena and a side-effect of our being sentient at this scale of things. Bell [1] actually remarked that in his view the reason Einstein resisted the Bohr model was that he was "very much attached to space-time". [1]: https://youtu.be/BFvJOZ51tmc?t=222 https://youtu.be/BFvJOZ51tmc?t=222
  - simonh 4y ago
    And it's also possible that resolving the issues between relativity and quantum mechanics will have no implications relevant to FTL and such. In fact there's no particular reason to expect that it would. So we're back to just flat out speculation. That's fine by itself, I love speculation, but that doesn't make this or that probable. It's the extending such speculation to making high confidence definitive statements, as though something's been demonstrated or proved likely, that I'm objecting to.
    - eternalban 4y ago
      Yes, but it is not unreasonable speculation. Speculation is not without value. > but that doesn't make this or that probable. Of course, that's a given.
      - simonh 4y ago
        Cool , we're in agreement, but it wasn't a given in the comment I was originally replying to which made very strong claims about what is probable.

Ya but we do know the universe exists without any fucking clue how or why. So, it seems fine to let your mind wander a bit.

by talove 4y ago

Ya but we do know the universe exists without any fucking clue how or why. So, it seems fine to let your mind wander a bit.

simonh 4y ago

Of course, that's an important feature of the way we relate to the world, but that doesn't make whatever we imagine likely or probable as claimed.

eternalban 4y ago
That's a sensible position. However, the GP's remark first asserts that our understanding of physical reality is incomplete, which is not unreasonable given that we have not yet reconciled classical and quantum physics. Further, quantum weirdness has strongly underlined the inadequacy of our intuitive perception of 'reality'; it entirely confounds it. It is possible that spatial expanse (distance), for example, is a secondary order phenomena and a side-effect of our being sentient at this scale of things. Bell [1] actually remarked that in his view the reason Einstein resisted the Bohr model was that he was "very much attached to space-time". [1]: https://youtu.be/BFvJOZ51tmc?t=222 https://youtu.be/BFvJOZ51tmc?t=222
- simonh 4y ago
  And it's also possible that resolving the issues between relativity and quantum mechanics will have no implications relevant to FTL and such. In fact there's no particular reason to expect that it would. So we're back to just flat out speculation. That's fine by itself, I love speculation, but that doesn't make this or that probable. It's the extending such speculation to making high confidence definitive statements, as though something's been demonstrated or proved likely, that I'm objecting to.
  - eternalban 4y ago
    Yes, but it is not unreasonable speculation. Speculation is not without value. > but that doesn't make this or that probable. Of course, that's a given.
    - simonh 4y ago
      Cool , we're in agreement, but it wasn't a given in the comment I was originally replying to which made very strong claims about what is probable.